[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 27976-27980]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
  S. 2084. A bill to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 
issue regulations concerning the safety and labeling of portable 
generators; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the last several years, 
hundreds of Americans have died from the poisonous carbon monoxide 
emitted from portable gas generators. Congress needs to step in and act 
quickly to stop these needless deaths. That is why today I am 
introducing the Portable Generator Safety Act.
  As most of us know, portable generators are frequently used to 
provide electricity during temporary power outages. These generators 
use fuel-burning engines that give off poisonous carbon monoxide gas in 
their exhaust.

[[Page 27977]]

  Every hurricane season, news stories come from Florida and elsewhere 
about people injured or killed by poisoning caused by portable gas 
generators. From 1998 to 2003, the most recent year of official 
statistics, at least 228 carbon monoxide poisoning deaths were reported 
to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. At least one person was 
killed and seven were hospitalized near Miami, FL, this fall after 
being overcome by carbon monoxide fumes. And over the last two 
hurricane seasons in Florida, at least twelve people died from 
poisoning caused by poorly ventilated portable generators. These people 
died because portable generators are not manufactured to automatically 
cut off when high carbon monoxide rates are reached and because many 
manufacturers fail to place adequate warning labels on generators.
  Here is what is especially troubling about these senseless deaths: 
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has known for years that people 
were dying from carbon monoxide poisoning at an increasingly alarming 
rate. In study after study, the Commission has recognized the high 
death rate from portable generators, and Commission staff has found 
that portable generator warning labels are often inconsistent, vague, 
and incomplete. Yet the Commission has continued to let the generator 
industry police itself--without any mandatory Federal safety standards.
  Enough is enough. Industry self-regulation--which works in some 
settings--clearly is not working here. Congress must now step in and do 
its part to eliminate these tragic and avoidable deaths.
  My bill--the Portable Generator Safety Act--takes some simple, 
commonsense steps. The bill requires the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission to pass tough Federal regulations within 180 days of the 
passage of the bill. The new regulations would have three components.
  First, every portable generator must have a sensor that automatically 
shuts off the generator before lethal levels of carbon monoxide are 
reached. Other products, such as portable heaters, already contain 
these types of sensors, which save lives.
  Second, every portable generator must have clearly written warning 
labels on the packaging and on the generator itself. These labels must 
include a pictogram that visually depicts the safety hazard from carbon 
monoxide. What I am talking about here is labels that are easy to read 
and can quickly be understood by people who are desperate for power in 
emergency circumstances.
  Third, every instruction manual that accompanies a portable generator 
must clearly explain the safety hazards associated with operating the 
generator.
  How many more innocent people must needlessly die before we require 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the portable generator 
industry to take some sensible, pro-consumer steps? It is my goal that 
after the next hurricane season, we will not be back here asking these 
same questions.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2084

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Portable Generator Safety 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Portable generators are frequently used to provide 
     electricity during temporary power outages. These generators 
     use fuel-burning engines that emit carbon monoxide gas in 
     their exhaust.
       (2) In the last several years, hundreds of people 
     nationwide have been seriously injured or killed due to 
     exposure to carbon monoxide poisoning from portable 
     generators. From 1990 through 2003, 228 carbon monoxide 
     poisoning deaths were reported to the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission.
       (3) Virtually all of the serious injuries and deaths due to 
     carbon monoxide from portable generators were preventable. In 
     many instances, consumers simply were unaware of the hazards 
     posed by carbon monoxide.
       (4) Since at least 1997, a priority of the Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission has been to reduce injuries and deaths 
     resulting from carbon monoxide poisoning. Although the 
     Commission has attempted to work with industry to devise 
     voluntary standards for portable generators, and despite 
     Commission staff statements that voluntary standards were 
     ineffective, the Commission has not promulgated mandatory 
     rules governing safety standards and labeling requirements.
       (5) The issuance of mandatory safety standards and labeling 
     requirements to warn consumers of the dangers associated with 
     portable generator carbon monoxide would reduce the risk of 
     injury or death.

     SEC. 3. SAFETY STANDARD.

       Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, 
     the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate 
     regulations, pursuant to section 7 of the Consumer Product 
     Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056), requiring, at a minimum, that 
     every portable generator sold to the public for purposes 
     other than resale shall be equipped with an interlock safety 
     device that detects the level of carbon monoxide in the areas 
     surrounding such portable generator and automatically turns 
     off power to the portable generator before the level of 
     carbon monoxide is capable of causing serious bodily injury 
     or death to people.

     SEC. 4. LABELING AND INSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.

       Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, 
     the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate 
     regulations, pursuant to section 7 of the Consumer Product 
     Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056), requiring, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       (1) Warning labels.--Each portable generator sold to the 
     public for purposes other than resale shall have a large, 
     prominently displayed warning label on the exterior 
     packaging, if any, of the portable generator and permanently 
     affixed on the portable generator regarding the carbon 
     monoxide hazard posed by incorrect use of the portable 
     generator. The warning label shall include the word 
     ``DANGER'' printed in a large font, and shall include the 
     following information, at a minimum, presented in a clear 
     manner:
       (A) Indoor use of a portable generator can kill quickly.
       (B) Portable generators should be used outdoors only and 
     away from garages and open windows.
       (C) Portable generators produce carbon monoxide, a 
     poisonous gas that people cannot see or smell.
       (2) Pictogram.--Each portable generator sold to the public 
     for purposes other than resale shall have a large pictogram, 
     affixed to the portable generator, which clearly states 
     ``POISONOUS GAS'' and visually depicts the harmful effects of 
     breathing carbon monoxide.
       (3) Instruction manual.--The instruction manual, if any, 
     that accompanies any portable generator sold to the public 
     for purposes other than resale shall include detailed, clear, 
     and conspicuous statements that include the following 
     elements:
       (A) A warning that portable generators emit carbon 
     monoxide, a poisonous gas that can kill people.
       (B) A warning that people cannot smell, see, or taste 
     carbon monoxide.
       (C) An instruction to operate portable generators only 
     outdoors and away from windows, garages, and air intakes.
       (D) An instruction to never operate portable generators 
     inside homes, garages, sheds, or other semi-enclosed spaces, 
     even if a person runs a fan or opens doors and windows.
       (E) A warning that if a person begins to feel sick, dizzy, 
     or weak while using a portable generator, that person should 
     shut off the portable generator, get to fresh air 
     immediately, and consult a doctor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Smith):
  S. 2086. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue code of 1986 to modify 
the definition of compensation for purposes of determining the limits 
on contributions to individual retirement accounts and annuities, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Smith in 
introducing the IRA Equity Act of 2005, which would allow the disabled 
and those who temporarily leave the workforce to continue to save for 
their retirement.
  We should be encouraging responsible behavior. When those whose 
income is slashed because they become disabled--or because they take 
time off to care for a child, volunteer for a good cause, or go to 
school--want to continue to save for retirement, that is commendable, 
it is responsible, and we ought to do everything we can to make it 
easier.
  Yet today, people who are injured and have their income replaced by 
workers' compensation or Social Security disability suddenly are no 
longer able to contribute to their IRAs. That's

[[Page 27978]]

because under current law, income contributed to IRAs must be 
``compensation,'' or earned through work. Under the current rules, 
disability income doesn't qualify.
  We know that those who become disabled will still need to support 
themselves in their old age; we know that they may even need to spend 
more because of their disability; and we know that because of their 
disability, they have less earning power and that makes it harder to 
save. So why in the world would we further penalize them for being 
disabled by taking away one of the most effective savings tools they 
have? It just doesn't make any sense.
  My legislation would fix this problem by allowing wage replacement 
income, including Social Security disability and workers' compensation, 
to be contributed to IRAs. Additionally, my legislation would permit 
those who take up to two years away from the workforce to contribute 
earnings from prior years to their IRAs so that they can continue to 
save. Federal law should not force people to break good savings habits.
  In the name of fairness and retirement security, I urge my colleagues 
to support this common-sense legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
  S. 2087. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
provide for the employment of foreign agricultural workers, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agricultural 
Employment and Workforce Protection Act. My home State of Georgia is 
one of the most diversified agricultural producing States east of the 
Mississippi. The livelihood of many of my constituents and many 
Americans across the country depends on the quality of the crop, the 
bounty of the harvest, and the health of the livestock.
  In drafting this legislation I am introducing today, I was guided by 
four principles:
  1. Prevention--if we do not stem the tide of illegal immigrants 
coming into our country then there is no point in Congress attempting 
to have a positive impact on our immigration policy. Strict enforcement 
of our immigration laws is essential and we should demand no less.
  2. Protection--the United States has always been a welcoming country 
to immigrants, and many non-immigrants are admitted for temporary 
periods to perform necessary jobs--particularly in the field of 
agriculture--that employers cannot fill. However, any temporary worker 
program must provide adequate protections for American jobs. Employers 
should not view alien workers as a way to get cheaper labor--it is not 
fair to Americans willing to work hard and looking for a well-paying 
job and it is not fair to the aliens who are exploited by working for 
sub-standard wages.
  3. Accountability--if Congress, through reform legislation, provides 
employers with an avenue to obtain legal temporary workers, there 
should be no tolerance for employers who hire illegal aliens. We all 
know that many illegal immigrants come to the United States seeking 
employment. Employers who flaunt the rule of law by hiring illegally 
are hampering our efforts to secure the border by providing incentives 
for people to illegally come to the United States, and they must be 
held accountable.
  4. Compassion--We are a Nation of immigrants and immigrants have made 
many wonderful contributions to our country--not the least of which is 
helping ensure there is a stable supply of food in the grocery stores 
for all Americans. We need to ensure that those workers who come to the 
United States on a temporary basis to perform agricultural work are not 
exploited and are treated with fairness and respect. The best way to 
show compassion for illegal immigrants is to stop illegal immigration.
  I know the Senate is planning to take up debate on comprehensive 
immigration reform early next year, and I think it is important that we 
engage in this discussion. The purpose of my legislation is to ensure 
that reform for the agricultural community is included in whatever 
reforms Congress considers. The agricultural sector of our economy has 
been historically plagued by illegal immigration. We already have an 
avenue for agricultural employers to obtain legal temporary workers--
the H-2A program. However, many agricultural employers do not use the 
program because its bureaucracy is difficult to navigate, it is costly, 
and it is litigious. In addition, it excludes certain occupations from 
agriculture. My legislation provides needed reforms to the H-2A 
program, provides for the creation of a temporary blue card program, 
establishes an H-2AA worker program for cross-border commuter workers, 
and, above all, provides for increased border security.
  First, it mandates that the Department of Homeland Security establish 
and present to Congress a comprehensive plan for increased border 
security and stricter enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws, 
including detailed strategies, timelines, and estimated costs. Until 
such time the Secretary presents and Congress approves the plan, some 
interim measures would apply.
  Second, the legislation streamlines and modernizes the H-2A program. 
H-2A is not a new guestworker program. It has been around for many 
years, but underutilized because of its high costs, red tape, and risks 
of drawn out litigation. To increase the use of the program, the bill 
expands the definition of ``agriculture'' to include industries that 
have been excluded from use of the program previously--industries such 
as poultry, seafood, and meat processors, landscapers, and 
reforestation contractors. The bill also bases the definition 
``temporary'' on the duration a worker is allowed to be in the United 
States rather than tying it to seasonality. Some agricultural 
occupations, like poultry producers and dairy producers, do not follow 
seasons but require workers year round. If these employers in 
occupations previously excluded from the H-2A program were offered a 
viable alternative to an illegal workforce, I have no doubt they would 
seize it.
  Third, my legislation creates a cross-border commuter worker program, 
called the H-2AA program. This program is modeled after the H-2A 
program, but recognizes that many farms located close to the Canadian 
and Mexican borders seek to employ workers who prefer to live in their 
home countries and simply come to the U.S. each day. The H-2AA program 
exempts farmers who employ these H-2AA workers from the housing and 
transportation requirements of the H-2A program, and requires those who 
use it to enter and exit the United States each day. It allows these 
agricultural operations to attract workers who live close to the 
borders but do not desire to move to the United States.
  Finally, my legislation establishes a blue card program. This is a 
temporary program that provides for the transition of employees who are 
currently here in an undocumented status filling needed jobs. To 
qualify for a blue card, aliens must have worked at least 1600 hours in 
agriculture in 2005, have never been convicted or a felony or a 
misdemeanor in the United States, and must have a petition filed on 
their behalf by their employer. Only after a background check is 
conducted by the Department of Homeland Security would these blue card 
workers be allowed to work in the United States for a period of 24 
months before they must return to their home country. The blue card 
allows employers who are currently utilizing an illegal workforce to 
transition their workforce into a legal one by having their employees 
leave the country and return on the legal H-2A temporary worker program 
without experiencing a complete work stoppage. There is no amnesty with 
the blue card program--all workers must return to their home country.
  The underlying premise of any guestworker program and explicitly 
provided for in my proposed legislation is that United States employers 
should not be allowed to utilize a guestworker program unless and until 
they have actively recruited American workers and are unable to find 
enough to fill needed jobs. We don't want to stifle American

[[Page 27979]]

businesses but more importantly we don't want to disadvantage American 
workers.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting practical needed 
reforms for the agricultural community and I look forward to the time 
early next year in which this vital issue will be debated here in the 
United States Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 2088. A bill to assist low-income families, displaced from their 
residences in the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi as a 
result of Hurricane Katrina, by establishing within the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development a homesteading initiative that offers 
displaced low-income families the opportunity to purchase a home owned 
by the Federal Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hurricane Katrina 
Recovery Homesteading Act of 2005. Modeled on the United States' 19th 
century homesteading initiatives and similar urban programs in the 
1970s, this legislation will help us begin to rebuild the Gulf Coast 
areas destroyed by the hurricane and flooding, providing a fresh start 
for families victimized by this tragedy.
  The new urban homesteading proposal will serve several purposes. 
First, it is an initial step towards rebuilding and revitalizing the 
hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast. While we have spent recent months 
appropriately focusing on rescue and clean up, we must now examine the 
long term need to rebuild and revitalize.
  Second, the new urban homestead initiative will be one way to begin 
to address the housing needs of those displaced by Hurricane Katrina. 
But I want to make it clear that this program is not being introduced 
as the sole answer to all of the housing problems faced by hurricane 
victims. Getting all of those individuals back on their feet will 
require multiple efforts on a significant scale. This is one component 
of a comprehensive response to the housing needs of the Gulf Coast 
region. I believe the initiative is a very good start.
  Third, the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act is a 
productive way of dealing with government owned properties. Through the 
Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans' Administration (VA), 
and other programs, the Federal Government holds title to thousands of 
properties in the Gulf Coast region. Vacant government owned properties 
have the potential to be a blight on their neighborhoods, diminishing 
property values and acting as a magnet for crime and vandalism. 
Following Hurricane Katrina, vacant properties can also present health 
and safety dangers. Unless the properties are rebuilt and have families 
living in them, they will likely be a significant drag on the efforts 
to rebuild the region. The homesteading initiative will address the 
health and safety concerns and further the revitalization effort while 
putting the property to productive use.
  I would like to briefly describe how the initiative will work. I am 
pleased that it is based on a Federal-local partnership, as well as a 
partnership between government, non-profits, and the private-sector. 
HUD will identify potential government owned property for transfer 
without cost to units of local government. The local government would 
establish an equitable procedure for selecting low income families 
affected by the hurricane for participation. HUD and the local 
government would work with partners, such as Habitat for Humanity, 
mortgage lenders, and others, to help the new urban homesteaders find 
resources to construct their new homes.
  Participating families must agree to occupy the property for five 
years as their principal residence, to bring the property up to health 
and safety codes within one year, and to build a house to applicable 
code standards within three years. They must also agree to periodic 
compliance inspections. In exchange, the family would receive title to 
the property.
  I would like to thank President Bush, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson, and House sponsor 
Representative Jindal for working with me on this effort. I look 
forward to continuing to work with them, long with the rest of my 
colleagues, to enact the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act of 
2005.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2092. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
authorize review by the Joint Committee on Tax of Federal income tax 
returns of United States Supreme Court nominees, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Greek philosopher Plato warned, ``where there is an 
income tax, the just man will pay more, and the unjust man will pay 
less on the same amount of income.'' This phrase is telling.
  The way people fill out their tax returns is an important window into 
their private ethical conduct. And it is a good barometer of their 
integrity, character, and suitability for office. Paying one's fair 
share of the tax burden is one of an American's most important 
patriotic duties. Americans from all walks of life pay their taxes out 
of obligation and fidelity to their country. Isn't it fair to know 
whether individuals who have been nominated for lifetime positions to 
the highest court in the land have faithfully paid their taxes?
  The legislation that I introduce today, The Supreme Court Tax 
Accountability Act of 2005, would require that nominees to the Supreme 
Court--including Judge Samuel Alito--provide 3 years of tax returns for 
an independent review to ensure compliance with the law. Specifically, 
the legislation would require the nonpartisan Joint Committee on 
Taxation to review a Supreme Court nominee's returns and report on the 
nominee's tax compliance to the Judiciary and Finance Committees. The 
bill does not extend the power to inspect tax returns to any persons 
who do not currently have such authority. And the bill ensures that 
private taxpayer information is not shared unscrupulously. Certainly, 
these returns would not be released to the public.
  This approach has precedent. Thirty years ago, Supreme Court Justice 
William O. Douglas retired from the bench. Within days, President Ford 
nominated John Paul Stevens for the vacancy. The President hoped that 
the nomination of a moderate who had been given the American Bar 
Association's highest rating would help restore confidence in 
government in the wake of the Watergate scandals. As the confirmation 
hearings drew near, six members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote 
Chairman Eastland requesting ``the most thorough practicable 
investigation of the nominee.'' The Senators' letter requested full 
disclosure of Stevens' personal health and finances, including a 
complete and thorough review of his Federal and state tax returns. 
Stevens promptly complied.
  When the full Senate took up the nomination, Chairman Eastland urged 
the confirmation of Stevens saying, ``his personal integrity, as 
reflected in his financial statements and income tax returns, is of the 
highest order.'' The Senate confirmed Stevens by a vote of 98 to 0 and 
he took the oath of office 2 days later at the age of 55.
  Washington is now under a similar ethical cloud. But the White House 
has resisted my efforts to have the Joint Committee on Taxation review 
the tax returns of Chief Justice John Roberts, Ms. Harriet Miers, and 
Judge Samuel Alito. The administration's decision to put its Supreme 
Court nominees' tax returns off limits is consistent with its penchant 
for secrecy.
  Its refusal to heed this most basic document request, however, is a 
barrier to the rigorous due diligence process required for prospective 
Government officials that come before the Senate Committee on Finance. 
All nominees, from Cabinet secretaries to Tax Court judges, have their 
tax returns scrutinized. On more than one occasion, the Finance 
Committee has admonished the administration for failing to do a

[[Page 27980]]

better job of determining a candidate's compliance with the tax laws. 
In some cases, tax issues have contributed to the withdrawal of 
nominees who were before the Senate.
  Despite these warnings and withdrawals, the administration still 
doesn't do a particularly good job of catching nominees' tax problems. 
Therefore, it is vital to the constitutional process of advice and 
consent for the Senate to have the information necessary to ensure 
fitness to serve. The Senate must not rely on the executive branch to 
provide oversight.
  Finally, I am introducing this bill today to apply to all nominees--
those nominated by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. 
Careful oversight of nominees to the highest Court in the land should 
not be a partisan issue. It was Ronald Reagan who famously said, 
``trust, but verify.'' This bill aims to embody President Reagan's 
maxim. Trust in government is an issue that Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents value.
  The noted Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis said that ``secrecy 
necessarily breeds suspicion.'' The American people have a right to 
know that public officials--particularly those appointed for life--have 
faithfully and fully paid their taxes. Blocking Congressional access to 
Supreme Court nominees' returns creates questions that can breed public 
distrust in government. Providing access to those returns can help to 
provide the transparency and trust Americans deserve in the Supreme 
Court nomination process. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to get this bill enacted.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 2095. A bill to ensure payment of United States assessments for 
United Nations peacekeeping operations in 2005 and 2006; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure 
that the United States does create new arrears at the United Nations. 
At a time when our Government is seeking important reforms at the 
United Nations, it would be a mistake for us to fall short on our dues 
at the U.N. But unless Congress acts promptly, that is what we are 
about to do.
  Here's why.
  In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N. 
peacekeeping at 25 percent after 1995. At the time, the United States 
was assessed by the U.N. at a rate of about 31 percent for 
peacekeeping. Thus, the United States incurred arrears because of the 
25 percent limitation--that is, the gap between the 25 percent and 31 
percent.
  In 1999, Congress approved the Helms-Biden law. It authorized the 
repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on certain reforms in 
the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a negotiated reduction in the 
United Nations of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent. 
Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in 
reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent.
  In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears 
payments to be provided to the U.N. at the higher rate--27 percent--
that Ambassador Holbrooke negotiated. But the original 1994 law 
limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed.
  In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a 
temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to 
the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke. That temporary change in 
law lasted through fiscal year 2005. But it has now expired.
  Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more 
than 25 percent for peacekeeping--even though the United Nations 
assesses the United States at the rate of roughly 27 percent. In the 
coming weeks, we are scheduled to pay a bill of about $344 million that 
has come due since October 1. Under U.S. law, we will only be able to 
pay about $319 million, leaving a shortfall of about $25 million. At a 
time when our diplomats are in the final stages of negotiating 
important reforms in the U.N. system, it would be a mistake 
unilaterally to withhold payments to the U.N. Rather than encourage 
reform, it may cause an adverse reaction by other nation and undermine 
our reform agenda.
  Earlier this year, the Bush administration recognized this coming 
train wreck. On March 1, the Department of State transmitted to 
Congress its official request for the Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. Section 401 of that legislation 
would amend current law and raise the limitation on U.S. payments to 
27.1 percent through calendar year 2007. The summary of the request 
said as follows: ``Without further relief, the U.N. peacekeeping cap 
would revert to 25% and the United States would go into arrears. The 
proposed section would . . . enable the United States to pay U.N. 
assessments at the rate assessed by the U.N. up to a rate of 27.1% . . 
. [t]his would allow the United States to pay its peacekeeping 
assessment in full, including funding for a new peace support operation 
in Sudan . . .''
  Since then, however, the administration has done little to secure 
enactment of this provision. On December 1, 2005, the Secretary of 
State requested by letter to the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations several ``critical legislative proposals that are of a 
time sensitive nature and warrant enactment prior to the Congress' 
adjournment in mid-October.'' The request contains four provisions but 
does not include the provision required to assure full payment of U.N. 
peacekeeping assessments.
  Mr. President, I realize that the Congress has a lot on its agenda in 
the final days of the first session. But we have a responsibility to 
ensure payment of our obligations to the United Nations--and to ensure 
that we do not undermine the negotiations on U.N. reform now underway.

                          ____________________